Naomi Long
East Belfast · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Underneath the Facebook posts to say that he had passed away, people speculated with such comments as, "Probably high on drugs", "Probably drunk", and, "Typical boy racer". There was all of that speculation. It was hurtful to the family, and it was inaccurate.”
“There are circumstances that we need to consider and be careful of. I was told, for example, that, when the issue of good character references at trial was being looked at in New South Wales — Committee members may wish to look at this for themselves — one of the groups that opposed their removal was representative of domestic abuse victi…”
“It sets out the strategic direction adopted by the Department and key partners to tackle those appalling crimes and protect vulnerable victims of exploitation.”
“The provision seeks to provide protection, via legal advice and representation for complainants, against the use of non-relevant personal material and evidence of previous sexual history being used in the court process.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the wider issue of ensuring that a withdrawal of services never happens again, I think that most of us agree that, although everyone has the right to take industrial action, no one has the right to derail and hold to ransom the entire justice system in that way.”
“Those measures will go some way towards helping to support complainants and enable them to have input into the decision-making process about what records containing their personal and sensitive information are required to be shared with the defence.”
The complete record
Every one of 7,548 lines we hold for Naomi Long, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 70 of 151.
“I am not, for a second, ruling out future action; indeed, when previously asked in the Chamber, I have gone to considerable lengths to say that, should my assistance be required, I will not be found wanting. At this stage, however, allowing the Policing Board to hold the Chief Constable to account represents a better use of public money, fully respects the independence and centrality of the board's role and will provide clarity on any outstanding matters more swiftly. That said, I take seriously my role in maintaining and building public confidence in policing and recognise that these events impact on that wider confidence. In the light of that, I stand ready to support the board in such actions as, it feels, are necessary.”
“<BR /> <BR />As the normal processes of policing accountability to the board — by the Chief Constable directly, by its human rights adviser and by the McCullough review — have not yet been fully worked through or exhausted, it would be premature at this stage to consider whether further action is required on my part.”
“The independent stakeholders, as things stand, are the following: Baroness Nuala O'Loan, former Police Ombudsman and known to many in the House; Martha Spurrier, who was the former head of Liberty; Patrick Corrigan, Northern Ireland programme director at Amnesty International UK; Daniel Holder, director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice; Alyson Kilpatrick, chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; David Lavery, chief executive of the Law Society of Northern Ireland; and Séamus Dooley, assistant general secretary of the National Union of Journalists.”
“His role will not extend to anything currently within the scope of the IPT proceedings, as that would cut across matters that are sub judice. <BR /> <BR />To encourage public confidence in the McCullough review, the Chief Constable has also pulled together a group of respected experts and stakeholders to be consulted about its terms of reference and to ensure that its commissioning and work properly examine any additional relevant matters of concern. The group and its members are not accountable for the independent review, as that sits with the Chief Constable, but they will provide advice and direction to the work of the reviewer.”
“I am also assured that the Chief Constable takes the allegations incredibly seriously and is working closely and cooperating with the Policing Board in its deliberations. <BR /> <BR />The Chief Constable will bring a further report to the Policing Board in the near future and yesterday announced a further independent review mechanism that he has constructed to examine and address the issues. I will set that out in more detail, if I may. He indicated that, in line with his statutory duties to report to the board, he had appointed Angus McCullough KC, a leading special advocate with the appropriate security clearance, to conduct an independent review of any PSNI use of surveillance against journalists, lawyers and non-governmental organisations or any groups that have special status.”
“The board has an important statutory duty under section 3 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to monitor the performance of the PSNI in complying with the Human Rights Act 1998, to which a number of Members referred in their contributions. I understand that, at the June board meeting, the human rights adviser to the board will provide his assessment of a report received from the Chief Constable on the surveillance of journalists and lawyers. It will then be for the board to decide the next steps. I am assured that the Policing Board is holding the Chief Constable to account on this most serious matter. It is therefore important, in the first instance, that I afford the Policing Board the opportunity to explore the issues with the Chief Constable thoroughly.”
“<BR /> <BR />With regard to local policing oversight, as I have explained many times in the House, and as the Member will be aware from his party's negotiations during the peace process, a key principle of the Patten report is that policing should be free from direct political influence. The tripartite arrangements resulting from Patten mean that the PSNI is operationally independent from my Department but operationally responsible to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. It is essential that I respect those carefully designed lines of accountability. <BR /> <BR />The Policing Board comprises a balance of political representatives and independent members who are collectively tasked with ensuring an effective, efficient, impartial, representative and accountable Police Service that can secure the confidence of the public.”
“A clear and independent complaints and investigation process is managed through the investigatory powers tribunal, and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office (IPCO) oversees inspection and arrangements for use of RIPA by public authorities. The tribunal exists to investigate complaints about the potential conduct of various public bodies in relation to the public, their property or their communications. IPCO oversees the use of investigatory powers covertly by public authorities to gather information for investigative or intelligence purposes. Members are aware that the concerns that we are dealing with and debating today are currently before the investigatory powers tribunal; as it is a judicially led tribunal, they are sub judice, as the Speaker indicated.”
“<BR /> <BR />Given the sensitivity and far-reaching nature of the investigatory powers, they are also subject to robust oversight and regulation, which is intended to prevent their abuse. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) is the primary regulatory instrument and, again, generally deals with matters that are excepted or reserved. From a justice perspective, it covers the use of the RIPA powers in a national security or a serious crime situation. It provides a comprehensive regulatory structure governing the acquisition of intelligence information. RIPA sections 28 and 32 give the basis on which surveillance can legitimately be carried out. <BR /> <BR />Oversight of RIPA is twofold.”
“The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA) provides a framework for the use of investigatory powers by the security and intelligence services, law enforcement bodies and other public authorities. The legislation is UK-wide, dealing as it does with excepted matters. The powers cover the interception of communications; the retention and acquisition of communications data; and equipment interference for obtaining communications and other data. The IPA also makes provision relating to the security and intelligence agencies' retention and examination of bulk personal data sets. Sections 2, 28, 77, 113 and 114 of the IPA deal in particular with journalistic information.”
“In that regard, I also note the Chief Constable's statement yesterday, which sought to provide some clarity on those matters. <BR /> <BR />Journalism in Northern Ireland has a long and proud history, reporting through the darkest days of the Troubles, providing some of the finest investigative journalism anywhere and never shying away from telling important stories or holding those in power to account. The 'No Stone Unturned' documentary is a classic example of such investigative journalism. Journalists must be free to do their job to the best of their ability, without fear or favour and without interference. A world in which journalists are silenced is a poorer and more dangerous one for us all. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to the use and oversight of covert surveillance powers in the UK.”
“I am grateful to the leader of the Opposition for tabling this important motion and to all Members who have participated in the debate. At the outset, I make it very clear that I share the concerns that have been raised widely about the alleged routine surveillance of journalists. <BR /> <BR />Journalism is not a crime, and a free press is the cornerstone of a free, open and democratic society. Although lawyers are not mentioned in the text of the motion, I am also aware of concerns that members of the legal profession may have been subjected to similar surveillance. It is important for me, as Minister of Justice, to stress that solicitor-client privilege is essential in order to ensure that we have an effective justice system that secures the trust and confidence of the public.”
“The parties to the proceedings will be heard again in the courts in relation to the precise form of declaratory relief. That will happen shortly. We have six weeks in which to reach a conclusion on whether to appeal the judgment. We want to take legal advance speedily on the matter ahead of that deadline to ensure that we consider all of the ruling's implications, not just for this particular legislation but for legislation passed by the House more widely.”
“I thank the Member for coming to meet me. We had a productive and useful discussion. The grounds on which the Member objected to the particular sections of the legislation are not and are not relevant to those that were tested before the courts. There was always a concern, as was raised by other Members, about the right of victims to speak about their experience. That is why the basis for the restrictions on reporting was drafted narrowly, so that victims could retain their anonymity but also have some recourse to be able to speak. We are now in a different position from when the Member and I met. It will be for me and my officials, with the legal advice available to us, to look again at the provisions and all options available to us at this point.”
“To the best of my knowledge, no representations were made to the Department or the Committee as the legislation passed through the House. The first representations that were made by the media in respect of the legislation came when the provisions were commenced, which was a considerable time after the passage of the Bill.”
“Where the Committee sought clarity and additional information, that clarity and additional information were provided. <BR /> <BR />I do not accept the Member's assertion that legislation was rushed through in the last political mandate. While it was a challenging period for all, no processes were condensed in the Committee, and we worked with Members, including members of the Justice Committee, to ensure that appropriate time was given for full scrutiny to be applied. There was no condensed passage of any Bill. I am conscious that my officials and I made ourselves available at long and short notice to provide additional information. I draw the Member's attention to the then Chair of the Committee, Mervyn Storey, who said:”
“As the Chair has recognised, this did not happen because it was brought at Consideration Stage, so the drawing of any conclusions in that regard does not follow through in logical terms. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the opportunity to put it on the record clearly that neither I nor my officials misled the Assembly in any way — not in any way. We were clear, and I categorically refute any suggestion that that was the case. The provisions were in the Bill at its introduction. While it is factually correct that specific queries were not raised about the provisions, that should not be interpreted as misleading the Assembly. The Committee did not ask questions on the particular provisions. They were neither hidden, nor was there any failing on my part or that of the Department.”
“As we take this forward, we will not only engage with our legal team about the judgement itself but look at the import of that in terms of future legislation and any potential change to this law. We take the issue of victims seriously. One of the reasons why the law was introduced and was on a par with the anonymity awarded to victims was to ensure that the right of victims to anonymity could not be undermined by jigsaw identification. Victims' concerns and rights have always had primacy in the conversation and will continue to do so.”
“To be clear, I did not walk the Assembly into anything. The Assembly, in fact, scrutinised the legislation, and the Act is an Act of the Assembly. The Member who has asked the question was in the Chamber and, indeed, raised objections to other elements of the Bill but not to that provision. I will also correct him where he said that I exaggerated Sir John's position. I have it in writing from Sir John in front of me that it is not true to say that he did not recommend the new law or that I misled MLAs about his report. He did recommend the measure of anonymity, albeit not the 25-year prohibition post-death. The latter point, however, he recognised as being entirely consistent with the spirit of his report.”
“As I have already said, it is a complex and detailed legal judgement, and it has implications not just for this particular legislation but potentially for the House. Appeal is therefore always an option. I will, however, want to consider all my available options carefully and in conjunction with the Department's legal team before arriving at a decision on the best way forward. The judgement goes beyond the reach of solely my Department to where it has a wider bearing on future functions of the Assembly. All involved will want to consider carefully whether there is the potential for unintended consequences.”
“That was on the basis that the provision criminalised the publication of a suspect's details without recognising any public interest defence and failed to provide for a process by which media organisations may apply to the court during a suspect's lifetime to have the prohibition on publication modified or revoked on public interest grounds. The other grounds of challenge, which related to the retrospective effect of the provision and an alleged lack of procedural fairness, were not upheld. As Members will appreciate, I now wish to take time to study the detail of the judgement in conjunction with my Department's legal team before making any decisions on a way forward.”
“Legal challenges to sections 12 to 16 of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which relate to the anonymity of persons suspected of a sexual offence, were heard in the High Court on 22 April and 23 April, and Mr Justice Humphreys delivered his judgement on 31 May. The judgement found in favour of the applicants in respect of the challenge that the provision was incompatible with article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which is the right to freedom of expression, and declared it unlawful.”
“I have been to prisons quite a bit since returning as Justice Minister. As in all parts of the public sector, things have been challenging in prisons, in particular, owing to the significant numbers of people there. I have, however, seen good morale in many parts of the prison system and, I have to say, creative and innovative work being undertaken by prison officers. I attended Hydebank Wood and met the women there. Work that they have been doing on education on healthy relationships and coercive control has led to a number of the women in the justice system coming forward and making declarations that have now proceeded to prosecution. That is an example of best practice in the Prison Service, and people are genuinely still very motivated by the work that they do, but this is undoubtedly a challenging time.”
“There are two elements to that question. The first concerns a public inquiry. As I have said, I believe that, in the first instance, it is right to allow the Policing Board to review with the Chief Constable what actions may or may not be appropriate from it and, indeed, from him. Depending on the outcome of that review, I will stand ready to listen to any action that they wish me to take. I do not want to rule anything in or out at this early stage. <BR /> <BR />On the second part of the question, there are significant challenges to releasing people's details. People should be made aware by being informed personally. Whether publication of their details in the public domain would be wise, however, is mostly a matter for them, because of GDPR and because of any perceived risk to their person.”
“<BR /> <BR />As the Member will be aware, the PSNI is operationally independent from my Department but accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board, so it is important for me to allow the Policing Board the opportunity to explore the issues thoroughly with the PSNI in the first instance. I am also aware that some of the allegations in part relate to the scrutiny of security matters, which is an excepted matter and, as such, falls to the Secretary of State, with whom I also intend to engage on the issue.”
“First, I very much share the concerns that have been raised more widely about the routine surveillance of journalists and lawyers. Journalism is not a crime, and a free press is critical to having a free society. Similarly, solicitor and client privilege is essential if we are to have an effective justice system that is trusted by the public. I have spoken to the Chief Constable and understand that a further report is due to be presented in June to the Policing Board in conjunction with our human rights adviser. The Chief Constable is taking the matter incredibly seriously, as rightly he should, and is considering other mechanisms to provide reassurance.”
“There are five key work streams that we are working through now and will continue to take forward at pace, because, ultimately, if we can do more with less in the criminal justice system, we will endeavour to do that and make best use of the resources that we have available, but it will undoubtedly be incredibly challenging.”
“As I said earlier, one of the consequences of the limited budget that we have available is that everything will be slower. The opportunity, for example, to open more courts, recruit more skilled staff and enhance the throughput of the court system, including the payment of legal aid to those in need of financial support in order to access justice, will be incredibly challenging for all of us. There is also a corresponding resource challenge to, for example, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to enable him to prosecute cases. We have, however, prioritised a programme of work that is targeted at reducing avoidable delay in the system.”
“Tackling delay is probably one of the biggest challenges facing the justice system, and it is a key priority for me and the Department. COVID had a significant impact. We had backlogs from COVID that will take time to clear, and we did not receive the resources that we would have needed to do that. Before COVID, however, the Department's efforts to tackle delay were starting to have a positive effect, with the overall average time to complete a criminal case falling from 169 days in December 2018 to 149 days in March 2020, when lockdowns were first introduced. On the basis of internal management information, provisional statistics show that the average time taken for quarter 4 of 2023-24 was 191 days. That is down from the post-COVID high point of 232 days, which was recorded in quarter 1 of 2022-23.”
“I absolutely agree. It had been my intention to do that in the previous mandate. However, the limitations of the then re-scoped Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill and the subsequent engagement of the Department's policy and legislative resources in the delivery of that meant that it was not possible to do that. However, I hope that we will be able to do it on this occasion. I do not believe that being homeless, in and of itself, should be punished. The police should not be the lead agency in tackling it. There are many people who should engage with those who do not have shelter and accommodation before the issue finds its way to the police.”
“Work on the review of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847 is ongoing. My intention is to repeal the provisions in those Acts that apply to Northern Ireland in the current mandate.”
“If the Minister for Infrastructure prioritises the matter and comes to the Department of Justice to discuss it, I will be more than happy to have that discussion. However, as I said, the policy lead for parking and other roads issues is the Department for Infrastructure. I am well aware of the issues. I cannot say that I have no contact with the Department on the matter, because I have written to it frequently about the issue as an MLA.”
“The matter of parking is decriminalised, and, as a result, it is for the Department for Infrastructure, with local councils, to take the lead. The policy lead is not mine. The issue of obstructive parking is an offence that is particularly difficult to make out. Unless there are markings on the pavement, you require a police officer, the illegally parked or obstructive vehicle and someone being obstructed to be present before action can be taken. The Department for Infrastructure has not brought that to the Department's attention by way of wishing to look at what recommendations we might have on proportionate fines or offences or whether it wishes to restructure the offence in some way, as it is the policy lead.”
“What needs to be done to deal with it is that the public need to recognise that, when the police are doing their job, they are there to protect the public, preserve life and keep people safe. The public need to be supportive of the police in that. There has to be a culture in which we do not tolerate attacks on the police. We can all contribute to that in how we conduct ourselves when discussing such matters. There will be operational things that lie with the Chief Constable and the Policing Board that they may wish to pursue, but as it stands those are prosecutable offences in current legislation, and, after the passage of the legislation that, hopefully, will be passed in this mandate, they will also be aggravated offences.”
“We had a useful debate in the Chamber on that matter only a number of weeks ago, during which I set out the particular offences that could be engaged in the prosecution of such offences. The issue of those offences being frequent is not unique to Northern Ireland, and nor are we at a legislative disadvantage in taking forward prosecutions. I point to what I said about first responders and those who provide a service to the public: if they are injured in that context, that will be an aggravated offence, if the legislation goes through.”
“I understand their frustration and share it. Had we been able to get on with our jobs over the past two years, we might have been in a better place. However, we are where we are and my focus now is on making sure that we make as much progress as we can in the three years available to us.”
“That would give protection not only to retail workers and first responders but to those who, for example, provide resources as a result of their charitable work. It would also cover people who work in transport, who have also come forward with fairly significant challenges.”
“There are a number of issues. I was at the Retail NI launch, and the figures are absolutely disgraceful. I think that all of us in the Chamber would agree that it is absolutely abhorrent that anyone who provides a public service or serves the public should be subjected to any kind of abuse or attack while they do so. It is important that we look at what options we have during the mandate to redress that. <BR /> <BR />I had originally intended to have an aggravator in the sentencing Bill covering those who provide services in the public sector, particularly those who are involved in emergency response. We are looking at how we can widen that to encompass a wider group of people, including those who work in retail. The language for that would be about providing a public service or a service to the public.”
“The most impactful part of this for victims is having the aggravated offence in place, and that is the bit that I am absolutely focused on getting through in this mandate. My position on that and on hate crime in general has not wavered.”
“To be clear, I did not campaign to get this job; I was nominated by a party colleague and accepted the position when the Assembly voted for me. I did not campaign to be Justice Minister. I want to be absolutely clear on that. <BR /> <BR />Whether this is stand-alone legislation or legislation that is developed by another vehicle, it will not change the import of the legislation or its implementation in the courts. The bottom line is that, in a restricted mandate, I have to look at what resource I have available to me. That may not be the reality of opposition, but it is the reality of government. Therefore, I have to find a way to manage the resource that I have in the way that is most impactful.”
“However, we are in discussions with officials and members of the sector to ensure that, whichever option we choose, we have the foundational hate crime elements that we would have had in primary legislation brought forward in this mandate.”
“First of all, what has changed is that we have lost two years of the mandate because the Assembly was suspended. Secondly, the resources in my Department are significantly constrained, including the human resource required to develop legislation. <BR /> <BR />The plan had been for five Bills in a five-year mandate, but that has had to be compressed. One of the Bills that would have been introduced in the latter part of the mandate was the hate crime Bill. However, to ensure that we do not fail in tackling the issue of hate crime, one of the options that we are looking at is a victims and hate crime Bill. We are also looking further at the potential to expedite Judge Marrinan's key recommendation to have an aggravated offence model and bring that forward as part of the sentencing Bill, which would ensure that it is in place a year earlier.”
“I am committed to ensuring that the risks posed to victims of domestic abuse are assessed and managed as effectively as possible, so we are setting up a dedicated multi-agency oversight group to consider the report's recommendations and develop costed options for reform. That group will be informed by a number of working groups that will be established to report to it. The core membership will include DOJ, the Department of Health and the PSNI, with other organisations invited to contribute.”
“Health and Justice officials will brief their respective Committees on 30 May, we hope, and I intend to publish the strategy and action plan jointly with the Minister of Health in June.”
“Together with the Minister of Health, I am finalising a new seven-year domestic and sexual abuse strategy, with input from the Department of Education, the Department for Communities and the Executive Office. The draft strategy is built around five pillars: partnership; prevention; children and young people; support and provision; and justice. It will provide the basis for a wide range of work to protect and support victims and address abusive behaviours. I thank voluntary and community sector partners for their invaluable input to the strategy and for sharing insights from those with lived experience. That has led to a more effective strategy that will make a meaningful difference to those affected by domestic and sexual abuse and their families.”
“Yes, I have met the representative body for sub-postmasters. It was pleased by the progress that had been made by the Department in getting the compensation and the convictions dealt with at a UK-wide level, because that is the quickest possible access to the redress scheme. <BR /> <BR />From my perspective, I have been clear about the impact that the situation has had on individuals' lives and about the fact that, in some cases, the loss of their business and the shame that it brought drove people to suicide. That is a serious issue. However, an inquiry is ongoing, and it would be wrong of me to prejudge the outcome of that.”
“I encourage anyone who knows of someone who was affected and who may not have been engaged or who may have moved on and be living somewhere else to ask them to contact the Department, as we are keen to follow up and ensure that everybody who could benefit from the legislation is able to do so.”
“Two convictions have already been overturned by the Court of Appeal. We believe that that leaves us with around 26 cases that might be within scope. To date, we have also identified one caution on similar grounds. The legislation also allows anyone who thinks that they may be within scope to come forward and identify themselves to us, and, where they meet the conditions specified, we will confirm that that is the case. As soon as we reach Royal Assent, those who are known to us will receive a letter to notify them that their conviction has been quashed. I encourage anybody who believes that they are within scope but does not receive a letter to contact the Department.”
“We are working closely with the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), the courts and the national representative group for sub-postmasters to identify individuals to whom the legislation may be applicable but who are not known to the Department of Justice.”
“The compensation scheme will operate on a UK-wide basis. The Department of Justice will have no role in the compensation scheme or in making it available to people. Our role is to ensure that the criminal records are suitably updated. We have already worked at pace with colleagues. Where we know that people have had a conviction that falls within the remit of the legislation, we will take steps to notify that person or a relative, if the person is deceased. As soon as we get Royal Assent, we will write to the individuals who fall into that category, within the scope of the Bill, stating that their convictions have been quashed and that their records will be amended accordingly. Some individuals who are in scope are not yet known to us, so we have not been able to identify where they are or how to reach them.”